Unified Digital Evidence from Vu Digital – Water Water Everywhere but not a Drop to Drink

What do digital evidence types such as bodycam videos, inmate phone calls, interrogation videos, dispatch audio, and surveillance footage all have in common? The answer, unfortunately, is that a large percentage of this evidence is not reviewed by prosecutors and investigators when preparing for trials. “Why?” you ask. Keep reading.

Undoubtedly, the proliferation of body worn cameras (BWC) has increased the volume of digital evidence in which prosecuting agencies are tasked to review. Digital evidence is pouring into these agencies at a pace that humans simply cannot keep pace.

Take for example, that it would require all 900 attorneys at the Cook County State’s Attorney office (2nd largest in the U.S.) to review 11 hours of video every day to keep pace with the 10,000 hours of video that some of the largest U.S. police departments are generating per week.

Furthermore, prosecuting offices spend an inordinate amount of time and effort identifying, collecting, and duplicating digital evidence from a myriad of sources. These digital evidence types include:

Inmate Phone Calls

Surveillance Footage

BWCs

Interrogation Videos

Dispatcher Recordings

911 Calls

Each type of digital evidence source listed above is captured, managed, and stored by various companies. Further, there are oftentimes multiple BWC vendors within a single county as various city police departments will purchase from various BWC vendors. Too much time is wasted on collecting and organizing evidence and not enough time is devoted to reviewing evidence.

Indeed, “Water water everywhere but not a drop to drink” is applicable given prosecuting agencies are unable to fully realize the potential in these new sources of evidence.